EDITORIAL: Estonia Whips Russian Butt

Reader “Robert” directs us to a BBC web page which compares the performance of the nations in post-Soviet space on economics, health and democracy. It provides three charts which reveal shocking facts about the failure of Putin’s resource-rich Russia when compared with tiny Estonia, the leader of the group.

First comes economics, which reveals not one but three stunning insights about Russia:

The chart shows Estonia has consistently out-performed Putin’s Russia. It also shows that even at Russia’s lowest point, 1998, it was still well above the regional average, meaning that when Russians complain they needed to impose dictatorship because of their unusual suffering they are simply lying. Many countries were worse off than Russia at that time, but they didn’t turn to the secret police. And finally, it clearly shows that Russia’s rebound begin in 1998, two years before Putin took the reins of power as president, under Yeltsin.

Chart number two shows that Russian life expectancy lags far behind the group average, and that compared to Estonians Russians hardly live at all.

Finally, there is the chart for democracy, and here again Russia’s performance is truly abysmal.

It’s wonderfully ironic that Estonia is so far out ahead of Russia, since Russia has been doing all it can to destroy Estonia, including a brutal and internationally famous wave of cyber attacks. Through it all, Estonia has developed a fully-realized and civilized democracy, spitting in the eye of its giant neighbor and it threats, showing the people of Russia that it can be done. Without oil resources, Estonia has proven to Russia that it can build a vibrant economy that puts Russia’s to shame.

253 responses to “EDITORIAL: Estonia Whips Russian Butt”

Very funny games with graphs:) From what I see here (may I just comment charts, ok?)

1) Steep growth in GDP per capita in Estonia is very much natural, if you consider dwindling population – a country of 1,5 M lost 200K in 10 years, starting from 1990. Just for a second, 15% population loss during 10 first years of independence?

2) Life expectancy growth of Russians during Putin years is something fantastic, fastest in Europe.

3) Same true about fertility. Now much better in Russia than in most EU states.

4) Leadership changes in Russia since 1990 = Leadership changes in the States since 1990 = Ukraine = Georgia. Funny how all named are much less democratic, compared to Estonia, right, LR?:)))))

Yes, you don’t like comparing performance of Estonia to Russia, do you dear. You want to talk about something else, anything else. That’s what we thought, why we wrote this post.

By the way, Russia ranks NUMBER ONE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE IN THE WORLD in life expectancy. Chew on that, idiot. Continue justifying Russian failure instead of reforming and Russia will go the way of the USSR. That’s what you want, right?

But of course there are other European countries where the life expectancy growth was better than Russia’s really poor of only 1 year in whole a decade of the very high (even highest-ever) oil prices – and this was from a very low level of only 65 years (to, oh-my, 66 years, which is apparently something amazing and “fantastic”). 2009 in Ukraine: 69 years. In Poland: 75 years. In Germany: 79 years. In France: 81 years.

And, somehow, those accursed imperialist-capitalist Americans, including the oppressed Negro masses, are now excepted to live 12 years longer than the glorious invincible Russian people under Colonel Putin.

Georgia: about 1/3 of the territory is in the hands of rebels and Russian forces, with most of the population of the Russian-occupied areas living as refugees elsewhere in Georgia.

There was also a civil war in the capital and elsewhere in the 1990s, there’s no oil and gas, and the country is democratic only since the early 2010s.

Still, the country is much more free and less corrupt than Russia, and the people live much longer than in Russia, and longer than they lived in the Soviet times too (unlike in Russia). It’s actually roughly the same all the time – above 70 years, always rising but not much – at least never falling (despite all the wars and refugee crises).

Oh, and about health and your: “Life expectancy growth of Russians during Putin years is something fantastic, fastest in Europe” – I think you meant the second Yeltsin term before 1998, when there was indeed a “fantastic” rise of 4 years (peaking at 67). Putin’s era was actually a long slightly-falling stagnation at 65 years, then a rise of just 2 years (until slightly above Yelstin’s high of 67 years, but still 2 years below this of 1990), before just another dive. And so in 2009 it was only 66 years in Russia as compared to Georgia’s 71 – with Estonia’s average being 73 (7 years more than in Russia), without falls since the early 1990s (their lowest was Russia’s current “fantastic” of 66 in 1994), including the rise of of 3 years from 70 in 2000-2009 (speaking about Putin’s era, when Russia’s rise was only 2 years at the peak, before the another fall in 2008 – still “fastest in Europe”, you say?).

But that’s not all, because in 1990 Tajiks lived shorther than the Russians, but now they live longer. Tajikistan. Same about Moldova. And Azarbaijan, despite “primary health care, medical facilities and training are poor” comment by the BBC – because Russia is even worse than that (Russian health catastrophe being blamed on “increased stress levels, drug use, HIV/AIDs, suicide rates and alcoholism among the general population” as well as the war in Chechnya, but Chechnya is a only a tiny spot on the map of Russia with not even 1% of the total population and yet there was a civil war in all of Tajikstan with not such consequences). And Uzbekistan, where “post-Soviet exodus of qualified doctors and nurses for a better standard of living in countries like Russia took its toll on overall health care” – and yet, it was much better than in Russia, without any plunge. And Kyrgyzstan, where “as with all the Central Asian countries since the collapse of communism, there has been a continual a “brain drain” of doctors and nurses seeking better paid jobs in Kazakhstan and Russia” – and yet, there was only a rise, unlike in Russia. They all clearly lacked of “something fantastic”. Maybe it’s really about Putin?

“I think you meant the second Yeltsin term before 1998, when there was indeed a “fantastic” rise of 4 years”

You lie. Late Yeltsin time saw life expectancy at

1999: “Among the most serious findings is a four year drop in life expectancy among Russian men since 1980, from 62 years to 58.”

1999: “transition to market economies [in the region] is the biggest … killer we have seen in the 20th century, if you take out famines and wars. The sudden shock and what it did to the system … has effectively meant that five million lives have been lost in the 1990s”

2010: “Russian life expectancy has again begun to rise. Between 2005—2010 the male life expectancy in Russia rose by over four years, increasing the overall life expectancy by nearly 4 years to 68.98.[53]”

Google these quotes yourself, as I can not post three links due to some site engine limitations.

Correct as far as the name itself is concerned, but how could possibly a fictional character submit non-random posts in the form of thought-out replies on a blog? Western brainrot never ceases to astonish.

Just because you name Yeltsin and imply his second term brought high life expectancy. And in 1998, the crisis in Russian economy – that happened during the second Yeltsin’s term, and a direct result of Yeltsin policies – was a reason of life expectancy falling so much.

That is why it was Putin’s administration, and his policies, of course, that were so good for Russian life expectancy. Putin became president in 2000.

Cool, if you say so, maybe “Yeltsin’s policies” was really just a pure hell for Russia, worse than the War Communism, whatever. But maybe now also tell me about the Russian national rebellion against all this oppression (besides 1993, when the “Heroes of Russia” of Vityaz had to just gun down a crowd at Ostankino to pacify all uppity proles everywhere, maybe about what happened in, say, this 1998), and don’t be shy about the stories of your or your father’s personal heroics of the patriotic resistance. And don’t forget to tell me about how all of Yeltsin’s thieving and murdering goons (such as Putin) are now in prison or dead, or something.

You’re a worthless slave. And I don’t even pity you. Some Russians don’t reserve what they get from their masters, but you deserve everything.

Now you can resume crying about how bad it was to be robbed by Putin in the 1990s and then chant how good was to be robbed by Putin in the 2000s. It’s quite amusing, for me.

Bobby, FT and NYT never writing about anti-Yeltsin protests didn’t mean there were no protests. In fact, that decade was full of protest. What’s more, 200-300 000 Russians left Russia a year. Economics was falling apart, demographics were worse than ever – it was almost a second WWII for the demographics of Russia.

Still you in the West adore Yeltsin – and respect him much more than Putin. The question is – what for, Bobby?

Oh, surely there were protests. But I asked what you (or your father, or mother) were doing to end the regime of Yeltsin, Putin, and thousands of other thieves and killers. You know, even voting against them, just once, and this is completely safe, would be quite enough. If you did even this.

If you think I “adore Yeltsin”, maybe you should read what I write when you are more sober, Dima.

And as of your “ever”, I still think the demographic were pretty bad in Russia in the late 1910s and early 1920s, with all this warfare stuff, mass terror, starvation, and also Spanish Flu too (but this one was global). Economics were also “falling apart” pretty bad – to the point of nothing at all (everything destroyed), or at least before the NEP. Somehow, “still you in the East adore Lenin – and respect him much more than Gorbachev. The question is – what for, Dima?”

So why won’t you come out and tell me of your (alleged) exploits to help your counrty? As I already asked you. Repeatedly. Did you EVEN vote against them? 1996? 2000? You see I don’t even ask about your part in strikes, or protests, or street clashes, or armed rebellion.

So you have no excuse of being drunk. If you really care, I drink beer occasionally (socially).

Bobby, why don’t we stay within the same topic and you just agree that you lied when you implied Yeltsin years we a time of high fertility rates and that Putin’s administration inherited this from Yeltsin?

But hey, okay, let’s say it was really “the biggest … killer we have seen in the 20th century, if you take out famines and wars”, this thing (worse than Stalin’s collectivization and terror, for example).

So, what was your Hero-Comrade Lt. Col. Putin doing all the time before Yeltsin made him his chosen successor, after serving in the Soviet organisation responsible for the death of millions of innocent Russians earlier in the 20th century? Was he in the opposition of any kind? Potesting, throwing stones at the OMON? Even defending the White House from tanks in 1993, maybe using his trusty handgun that he used to wave at the unarmed East German democracy protestors in defense of his KGB office? Did he resign from his position in protest of anything? (I won’t even ask what you were doing back then, apparently not much as the rest of Russians.)

No, he was he one of the top officials of this system, corrupt to the max (stealing directly from the hungry Russians, no less – the “Putin case” was about the theft of the funds supposedly to buy food for the people of St Pete, you know?). And even when his henchmen were clandestinely planting bombs in Moscow, it was not to undermine the system. Do you think he built his (not-so) secret palace for you, or for all the homeless people of Moscow? Why, please continue to support him and his gang in exchange of some bullshit, just keep goose-stepping for your National Leader to your doom.

Yushchenko and Saakashvili? Oh, so you were an opposition leader against Yeltsin, at helm of a crowd of people in the Red Square? Well, maybe I was wrong about you, after all. Don’t be shy and tell me more.

So pray tell mehow a former attorney-general become a leader of opposition? How a former central bank director accuse the ex-president of wasting too much money? At least a city mayor assistant just physically can not be involved in corruption on such a level as these two were.

So, why don’t we just stop playing cunning, and say: they were all three bureaucrats very loyal to the regimes, it’s just 1 of them remained loyal, and two were bought by Soros.

And don’t forget: Auschwitz. After all, he barely missed a trip there.

I know you’re just trolling, and nothing you write should be taken seriously by anyone. But maybe you should rather say “Chernokozovo” instead of “Guantánamo”, if you want to drop some scary names while trying to outrage people.

OK, that’s the last I answered to you. I’d ban you long time ago if it was my blog.

Bobby, compare Russia to Ukraine. Ukraine had no wars, and Ukraine had a “democratic” orange revolution.

Languages are close, both peoples are orthodox christians, and Ukraine was a huge, perfectly developed (industially, I think, more advanced than Russia) republic in the USSR. With a perfect climate for agriculture.

As I said, in 1990 the “perfectly developed” Ukraine had GDP per capita of only 2/3 of Russia’s the same year.

And as of demographic trends these there were rather bad in 1933, “a perfect climate for agriculture” or not. Because of the leadership in Moscow and their local collaborators, as enforced by the genocidal organization of Putin (and his father).

Now? Below 1/2 (that is much more than “about 1/5 or even 1/7″), amnd it’s because they couldn’t take adventage of the high oil prices. (BBC: “Russia’s economic power lies in its natural resources – namely oil and gas.”) The deeply flawed Ukraine is not an example for Russia to look to, anyway. It’s rather, you know, “eSStonia”.

And regarding your question, how about the large part of the population that Russia lost (emigration, dying, few births among non-Muslims) during 20 years of “independence” (gangster rule), despite such a good starting position, “dear”? And what did you do about it? (I’ve asked already, apparently you did nothing, which is symptomatic.) And why it actually did NOT happen in Poland (and also why the Polish economy did not suffer even in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 global crisis)? And how many dump hospitals for the large numbers of Russian TB and AIDS victims could have been built, or orphanages made less hellish so some of the so many Russian street children would chose to live there after all, for the cost of Putin’s private palace and Ramzan Kadyrov’s collection of luxury cars and race horses? “Is this a payment high enough for a chance to make a man like Kadyrov a hero of the nation?” That’s some good questions for you, “dear”. But you won’t answer them.

About hospitals: I meant repaired, not built. How about just providing heating, sewage system and running water (maybe even, gasp, hot water) to some hospital so maybe less people would be dying there? Would it be really less important than another racing horse for Kadyrov in Dubai?

Are you REALLY supporting such system? Would you even fight in its defense? Do you think of yourself as a patriot? Seriously?

Bobby, but both Ukraine and Georgia took exactly that one little “democratic” way that the West was promoting in the ex-USSR region.

Now their GDP per capital is at the levels normal for Sub-Saharan Africa.

Their fertility rates – we’ve been discussing these above – they are among the lowest in Europe.

Just like Estonia, both lost huge share of population.

None of this happened in Russia during Putin’s years.

Really, can’t you see it’s *good* for Russia, and it’s bad for Georgia andUkraine that they chose the wrong way? Wrong for their population? Never mind that Western medias love them and would continue to love them till the countries fall apart?

No, Poland, East Germany, Czech Republic & Slovakia, Hungary, etc. “took exactly that one little “democratic” way that the West was promoting”, while most of the former Soviet Union either got hijacked by corrupt cliques of former Soviet appartchiks and siloviki, or just continued to be ruled by the old communist “elites” without any personal changes at the top at all.

What is “good for Russia”? Sponsorship of Kadyrov’s, Kokoity’s and other non-Russian (claimed to be “Russian”, but this is a lie) gangs by the Russia’s ruling Chekist mafia that is enjoying the high oil prices and continuing to rob Russia and bring their loot abroad, while the scale of corruption (even this illegal, in your own official statistics – including in police and military) and beaurocracy is much higher than in the 1990s?

If you wanted what you call “that one little “democratic” way”, you’d make your president Sergei Kovalev or some other Soviet dissident – just like Walesa in Poland or Havel in the CzR. And if you wanted a “strongman” with the Soviet past, but who is not corrupt and not connected with the Cheka terror organisation, you would always take someone like General Lebed. It’s only your fault whom you elected. In normal countries, someone with the past in the communist terror structures could never be elected or appointed at all into any public office, either legally barred or just forced to disclose his “security” connections so no one would vote for him – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustration#Examples – and these copycat services in the USSR’s puppet countries had much less blood on their hand then the Cheka.

Be sure, little Bobby, me and my parents did quite a lot to form Russia’s future.

As to why we in Russia did not use the “little petrodemocracy way” – can’t you see that all those countries that you named are ruled by large business? Not even originating from domestic markets? Can’t you see these businesses control the media? And decide who’s democratic?

Bobby, I’m really bored to discuss it for the 100th time – just compare how Ukraine and Belarus are doing in terms of demography and economy, and understand why even an autocracy like in Belarus was better for the population than external administration like in Latvia or Ukraine and Georgia.

But, just what else Russia exports? As compared with the mentioned Canada (where agricultural, energy, lumber and mining combined being only about 58% of total exports, as compared with 38% in machinery and manufactures)? Or the Netherlands (third in the world in agricultural exports)?

I mean, besides cheap weapons designed (or even manufactured) in the Soviet Union. Or mail-order brides, and refugees.

1) Let me tell you what Canada, the US, Britain, France and other G7s export. It’s debt. Other than that. they just exchange – Canada sends timber to the States, States return cars, Britain sells them two some equipment, France feeds them cheese.

But it’s BRIC countries who have money. One must be blind to not see how, say, Greece and Italy do everything they can to be bailed out by China now – until it’s too late. And Britain’s debt is *400%* of it’s GDP.

2) Russia has a positive (much more positive than you can imagine) trade balance. We have no debts, and each Russian, including newborn babies, owns USD 4K in the gold & currency reserve fund.

This actually means that whatever we export, we produce most of what we consume here domestically. We do not spend that much on *import*. As a result, we have no need to be bailed out.

So, you are self-sufficient. Great, you have achieved the principal objective set by the North Korean dictators. I hope you remember this next time Russia crawls on her hands a knees begging the United States and other hated Western enemies for food assistance. We’ll tell you to use your 4K in the gold and currency to buy food.

Russian starvation is a part of Russian “greatness”. Millions of people starved to death in Russia the Soviet times, in the man-made famines, during the war (including in the unoccupied areas that were not even besieged), and of course in the GULag, but they are not really remembered, while Stalin is a “great Russian” (pretty good for a Georgian-Ossetian, but the Russians love the foreign oppressors if they only speak their language) and the end of the USSR and independence for Russia was a greatest catastrophe of the century (allegedly).

Even certain Vidkun Quisling helped to save many Russians (and others) while delivering humanitarian aid in the early 1920s, and married a Russian.

I remember when Russia was gripped by the anti-Western mass hysteria in conncection with Kosovo War in the early 1999. It was then, when, much more quietly, the first aid transports with the American meat began arriving in Russia, following the Russian economic crash of 1998 and the bad harvest the same year. The only other destinations of such transports were some African third-world countries, which is pretty fitting (“Upper Volta with missiles”, “Nigeria with snow”, etc).

Absolutely correct, Randy Andy! If you only knew how misty-eyed the average Russian becomes when I tell him or her that I’m a very proud compatriot of Anders Åslund.

On a serious note: It’s the dumbed-down, self-opinioned, and arrogant Western petty bourgeoisie that is fed — body and soul alike — by Western imperialism’s global tyranny. That’s precisely why you literally identify yourselves with it, resorting to the pronoun “we”.

Those westerners are such parasites. You want food, they have it. Technology, the good kind, not that Russian junk, they have it. Autos, good military equipment, airliners, publishing, cellphones, ditto.

Its those wonderful Russian lads in the employ of the Russian military who in reward for the protection of peoples and lands in the Caucasus are amply rewarded with kindnesses in the form of TV sets, food, jewelry, boats, cars. Everyone wants to see the Russian army in their neighborhood.

RV, do you really believe I was talking about “self-sufficiency, N.Korean style”? BTW, learn the word – it’s called Juche.

I was talking about buying one Chinese TV set each 4 years, instead of 4 Chinese TV sets each year. About buying 4 T-shirts per year – not per month. About not having half of the nation with an excessive body mass.

Do you call it Juche? I’d rather call it “not pigging out”.

P.S. “crawls on her hands a knees begging the United States”. That’s why you are so disgusting – you have so much hatred inside, and still want to look respectable, dear, in all your hypocrisy.

Well, I didn’t know the word “Juche” but I have to defer to you on this. You surely would know better what terms your friends use.

And I don’t know why you call me disgusting. What did I say that isn’t true? Did Russia ask for food assistance as recently as 1998 or 1999? Or not? Surely, she was not too proud then, was she? Did she get it? Or not? The facts seem to be inconvenient for you and undermine your “pride.” But since you are so sensitive, fine. I withdraw the word “beg” and replace it with the word “ask.” Happy now?

And now you are saying “we produce most of what we consume here domestically,” which is obviously not true. There are many reports that Moscow, at least, is overflowing with imported goods.

RV, you are right about 1998. And that’s what people like about Putin – he madeit sure nobody needs this assistance any more.

“Moscow, at least, is overflowing with imported goods” – care to name any? Let me say, Chinese consumer electronics are sold all over the world, and there are no other really significant players in the industry. Any other spheres where imports are a major part of the market? Food? Pharmaceuticals? Construction services? Transportation? Machinery? Anything? I’m not saying there are no such markets, but do you really know what you say? Can you name these?

No, most of them are not Dtard.
Russians still prefer to import cars rather than buy anything locally made, and by locally made I mean from parts manufactured in Russia,even preferring 2nd hand Japanese models over anything made in Russia.

The makes you mention are assembled from kits made of parts manufactured in Germany and France, and most of the complex assembly is already done outside Russia (Kaliningrad to be precise in most cases) just the final putting together is done in Russia, the low skilled part really.

You are the stupid one sub-simian.
If you had a brain cell it would be lonely

Excuse me Dtard, I never said Kaliningrad was “outside Russia”, however it only became “part of Russia” in 1946 after massive ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

Originally named Königsberg in German, the town was founded in 1255 and was part of Prussia and then of Germany until 1945, but was largely destroyed during World War II. Its ruins were occupied by the Soviet Army in 1945 and its German population forced out. It was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946 in honor of Mikhail Kalinin.

Ahem, the US produces several times more food than Russia, provides billions in international aid to starving countries, something that Russia has never really done, Russia more prefers to steal from others.

Marxism is when the state comes, shoots you, and takes your cow to feed “the proletariat”, hence the immense failure of Soviet agriculture.

Modern Russian agriculture is a joke, all that land and such pathetic production…..and it is the “black earth” regions I am talking about.

Really floppy, considering that you are a “true believer” in the most foul ideology to ever be put into practice, that killed over 140,000,000 people in political repression in the 20th century, anything you say can be safely ignored as rubbish.

Now, I have to change all the world democide totals that populate my websites, blogs, and publications. The total for the communist democide before and after Mao took over the mainland is thus 3,446,000 + 35,226,000 = 76,692,000, or to round off, 77,000,000 murdered.

This exceeds the 61,911,000 murdered by the Soviet Union 1917-1987, with Hitler far behind at 20,946,000 wiped out 1933-1945.

Oh Andy, It’s just too boring to dig into again. Sure you lie, as well as your author does, but if you can’t see how Soviet population grew during the 70 years of Soviet rule, then it’s absolutely ok for you to say whatever you want.

Sure here in Russia we are more than happy the little Sakartvelo is now on her own.

But of course, “Stalin was a Georgian!” (Ossetian) Yeah. A one that ruled Moscow and from Moscow, and the Russians were and are okay with him, and today tend to think of him as a “great Russian”, for some reason. (Like their love of foreign oppressors.)

Most Greeks in the new Soviet Union lived around the Black Sea. Settlers who concentrated around the north shores of the Sea of Azov (the “Mariupol Greeks”) had a dialect and culture of their own; they were the descendants of an older farming community in Crimea which Catherine the Great had moved into southern Russia. But the majority was of Pontic origin. The Greeks lived in the port cities, especially Odessa, Rostov and Sevastopol, in the fertile Kuban steppes, in the coastal towns and villages of Georgia and Abkhazia and in the hills off central Georgia.

The first Soviet years were tolerable, even encouraging. The Greeks rapidly recovered from the devastations of the Civil War. They kept most of their farms, and there was a vigorous cultural revival: a reform of the Greek alphabet; a wealth of bold and interesting Greek books, journals and newspapers in the kiosks; a state-assisted network of Greek-language education. On the Kuban coast and in some districts of Ukraine, Greek autonomous regions were established.

But with the collectivisation of farming after 1928, and Stalin’s usurpation of supreme power, the Greeks were transformed almost overnight from beneficiaries of the Revolution to victims. Everything about them was now construed as counter-revolutionary: their tradition of free enterprise, their links with the “imperialist” world outside and especially with Athens (many of them held Greek passports), their independent culture. The Greeks in south Russia and Ukraine strongly resisted the loss of their farms, and thousands were arrested. As the “Great Purges” developed in the 1930s, their cultural and political leaders were charged with treachery or Trotskyism and murdered. The Greek schools were closed and Greek literature destroyed. In south Russia, political persecution rapidly turned into ethnic pogroms; entire Greek communities were arrested and deported. Dr. Effie Voutira, who has done much research among the Pontic Greeks in the ex-Soviet Union, estimates that as many as 170,000 Greeks were expelled to Siberia and Central Asia after 1936.

But this had only been a prelude. The full impact of state terror was turned against the Greeks in the aftermath of the Second World War. Like the Crimean Tartars, the Chechens and the Volga Germans, the Greeks of the Soviet Union became a condemned nationality and were banished.

The 70,000 Crimean Greeks, almost all Pontic by descent, went first. Then came the Greeks of Kuban and south Russia. Finally, on the night of 14/15 June 1949, a single immense operation planned in secret for many months rounded up almost the entire Greek population of the Caucasus.

The settlements in Abkhazia and along the Georgian coast down to the Turkish frontier were the principal target. About 100,000 people were seized. Their villages were surrounded in darkness by NKVD special troops, and they were given only a few hours to pack. Many of them perished on the sealed trains, and when they arrived at their destination-usually weeks later-they were deliberately dispersed: scattered among small Moslem communities and kolkhoz cotton farms across the Central Asian plains.

Why was this done? There is no clear answer, even today. Stalin’s fear of war in the Black Sea, his memories of the 1919 Intervention, Georgian intrigue and envy or the possession of Greek passports by so many Pontic Greeks-all these have been put forward as explanations. Perhaps the real provocation was that the Greeks were a family. Their human links were stronger than the artificial bonds of totalitarian politics. They were residents of the Soviet Union, but their crime was to be “cosmopolitan”; to be members of a wider world of trade, gossip, marriages and family funerals which carried on its activities across and beyond the Soviet frontiers.

But Black Sea life without Greeks-the local politicians and factory owners, the grocers and cafe proprietors, the journalists and bank-clerks and grain-dealers and ship’s captains-was a thin shadow of what it had once been. The Greeks had been envied by their neighbours. Now they were painfully missed…

After Stalin’s death in 1953, the deported Greeks who had acquired Soviet nationality were allowed to return from Central Asia. (Most went back to Georgia, although their houses and farms had been sold off or confiscated after 1949.) The rest, those who held Greek papers issued by a country which they had never seen, remained in exile. At this stage, it seems, their concept of their status and of their relationship to Greece began to change. They had accepted their first great uprooting, the flight from the Turks in Pontos, as an emigration, a move to new shores on the same sea. But Stalin’s banishment turned the Pontic Greeks, in their own estimation, into refugees.

Dr. Effie Voutira has pointed out that the modern use of the word “refugee”-especially in English-predicates the existence of a nation-state. By the mid-twentieth century, everyone was assumed to be a member of a national community. Everyone was at home somewhere, each with his or her passport. The great and growing number of human beings who had become internationally “homeless”-the refugees-were therefore people whose primary plight was that they had been separated from their rightful nation-state. This is why we almost always add a national adjective to the term, as in “Bosnian/Polish/Zairean refugee.” The refugee is somebody who once had a nation, but lost it.

This is an odd, inadequate way of designating the millions of displaced individuals and families carried back and forth on the tides of the world, but the displaced themselves are increasingly inclined to adopt it-precisely because “refugee” implies membership of a state community. This was not always so. The Gaelic-speaking Highlanders who were removed from their townships and transported to Canada considered themselves emigrants, rather than refugees, although their departure (the “Highland Clearances”) was not usually voluntary. The Pontic Greeks who fled from Trebizond to run beach cafes at Sukhum, or print newspapers in Odessa, or plant vineyards in Georgia, grieved for their lost homes but prepared to put down fresh roots. But when Stalin snatched them away from the Black Sea and duped them in the steppes of Central Asia, threatening their whole community with physical and cultural extinction, they could no longer consider themselves emigrants. This time, they had been not merely transplanted but condemned.

In Central Asia, the Pontic Greeks faced two extreme alternatives. One was to assimilate to Soviet society, and to seek to climb the Party ladder-which many Greeks did. The other was to reject the whole new environment. In the end, the choice was effaced. The Communist Party and then the Soviet Union capsized and sank, leaving climbers and rejectors together in the same leaky boat: all were now non-Kazakh or non-Uzbek “colonialists” in newly independent Moslem states. The “natives,” who understandably drew no distinction between outsiders who had arrived in their land as conquerors, imperial settlers or banished victims, contemplated the farms and bureaucratic posts occupied by Russians, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, Greeks, Volga Germans, Chechens and Meshketian Turks, and began to close in. By 1990, ethnic rioting between locals and incomers was spreading across Central Asian republics. Now, with fresh desperation, the Pontic Greeks appealed to “their nation:” Greece.

In the first years after the Russian Revolution there had been some outflow to Greece, and more Greeks contrived to escape in 1939-9, after the Great Purges. But then the Soviet external frontiers closed tightly. They did not open again for almost fifty years, when Mikhail Gorbachev began to lift the ban on mass emigration.

At that time, in the mid-1980s, probably around 500,000 Greeks were living in the Soviet Union, almost all of them of Pontic origin. By the end of the decade, they were arriving in Greece at the rate of 20,000 a year, and by the mid-1990s, the Greek villages in Central Asia were practically empty. Some, a minority, went back to the Black Sea coasts in south Russia or Georgia. There was even some optimistic talk of reviving the old idea of a Greek autonomous region in the Kuban; a congress of Greek delegates was held at Gelendzhik, near Novorossisk, in 1991, and a Greek-language newspaper (Pontos) appeared in the little port of Anapa. But the Caucasus grew much less attractive for Greek exiles in the next few years. Civil war in Georgia was followed by an even more violent struggle as Abkhazia, historically one of the centers of Greek settlement, fought Georgia for its own independence. Most Pontic Greeks headed “home”-to Athens or Salonica.

Russian exporters forced to drop grain prices
By Isabel Gorst in Moscow
Traders are struggling to make any sales of Russian grain in spite of the country lifting its controversial export ban.
The ban, which was lifted on Friday after lasting almost a year and causing turmoil in global agricultural markets, has made buyers wary of the political risks of importing Russian grain, traders said.

“There is practically no demand for Russian grain,” said Arkady Zlochevsky, the president of the Russian Grain Union.

Ahmed al-Sandiyouni had accused Gawdat al-Malt, the director of Egypt’s Central Auditing Organization (CAO), of turning a blind eye to the importation of thousands of tons of carcinogenic wheat over the last decade, most of it from Russia.

First you claim “the US produces several times more food than Russia”, “Russian agriculture is a joke, all that land and such pathetic production”

Now that you see that Russian grain exports are “several times” higher than the USian are per capita, you claim – “yes, they export much but – nobody wants Russian grain”:)))))

So how come then in 2011 WSJ wrote about Russian ban on wheat exports: “The ban sent shockwaves through international markets and propelled wheat prices to highs not seen since the 2007-08 food crisis.”

How can Russian decision send “shockwaves”, if Russian exports are insignificant, silly?:)

And so on, and so on. It’s quite boring to discuss anything serious with you…

Dmitry, our lead mishist Randy Andy has given rise to a most accurate phrase in depicting our beloved LR blog at large: “significantly pathetic”. As I pointed out in another thread a few days ago, the dolts which form the LR team are too sloppy to care about such a thing as consistency. They take to whatever anti-Russian excrement they happen to come across even if contradicts other equally preposterous LR bluster outright.

But, then again, that’s exactly what Western imbecility and depravity brings in its train. Societies that have outlived their historical usefulness just can’t feel the foul smell of their very own decay.

So tell me dear, how can Russian agriculture be so advanced as to export more wheat per capita than the US does? How come US exports so little? Crisis? Nobody wants USian grains? Farmers are working poorly?

What’s the reason that the US – a country with huge masses of perfect arable lands – exports so little wheat? Why the EU does not export much?

All because you seem to have not been producing anything of real lately, mostly debt, right?

P.S. “You” above was not relating to you, Georgian Andrew. We all know what Georgia produces and exports – words:)

Considering that Russians outside Moscow/St. Petersburg are actually worse off than in Yeltsins day thanks to Putins policies, and that the inflation of food prices is quite significant in Russia….

BTW, when did Russians start using “cents” as everyone knows there are only Roubles now, no Kopeks……

Russia’s rich double their wealth, but poor were better off in 1990s
Fall of Soviet Union brought wealth only to society’s elite, researchers say

Tom Parfitt
guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 April 2011 21.01 BST

The richest slice of Russian society has doubled its wealth in the past 20 years, while almost two-thirds of the population is no better off and the poor are barely half as wealthy as they were when the Soviet Union fell, according to researchers.

Experts at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics (HSE) found that the purchasing power of the average Russian has grown by 45% since the early 1990s, but income disparity is widening by the year.

The report reinforces a widely held view that oligarchs got rich quick by snapping up the country’s choicest assets in the turbulent post-Soviet period.

Yevgeny Yasin, scientific director of HSE and a former economics minister, said: “The principal issue for Russia’s economy and society today is the level of inequality. Only the best-off 20% of the population is successfully participating in the rise in prosperity which became possible as the result of creating a market economy.”

Food is slightly cheaper relative to income and simple pleasures have become more accessible. The average adult buys more vehicles and televisions and can afford more alcohol and cigarettes than at the beginning of the 1990s. “Drinking, smoking and burning around in a car have become a lot cheaper,” the report found.

But most Russians can only stare in envy at the super-wealthy with their Bentleys and dachas. According to the report, income inequality between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s has increased eight times more than in Hungary, and five times more than in the Czech Republic.

The huge gap between rich and poor “largely negates the economic and social achievements of recent years,” the HSE report said.

Yasin added that the study indicated there were “two Russias”. The wealthiest fifth of the population received a pay cheque equivalent to 198% of its value in 1991, while the poorest fifth made only 55% in real terms. In total, 60% of the population has the same real income or less than the average 20 years ago.

“Many things are required to change this,” said Vladimir Gimpelson, one of the authors.

“We need more political and market competition, enforcement of property rights, rule of law, systemic change in labour market institutions and stronger social protection for the needy.”.

And as for “per capita” what you don’t seem to grasp is that US food production is massively superior in volume to Russia, of a higher quality, and feeds more people by far.

Also not counted in the export figures is the huge amount of agricultural products provided in aid by the US to foreign countries, these are counted as domestic consumption as they are purchased by the US Government.

Russia is incapable of feeding it’s own population, the USA is more than capable

“The United States is blessed with more arable land than any other nation on earth. Still, only about one-fifth of our land area (382 million acres) is used for crop production. Grazing land for livestock accounts for about one-fourth of the privately held land in the U.S. (525 million acres).”

“In 1990, there were almost 987 million acres in farms in the U.S., that number had been reduced to just under 943 million acres by 2000.”

Two decades ago when the Soviet Union was collapsing, it was clear to me that Estonia was the one sure bet among the former Soviet republics. During the Soviet years, they always had access to Finnish TV, which gave them a window on the outside world. Therefore, they didn’t have to reinvent their culture from scratch, and they were ready to start interacting with normal countries from the start. Estonia also has the geographic advantage of being on the Baltic, where they have direct access to Europe (as in the days of the Hanseatic League).

and they lost just 20% or so of their population during the 20 years, that means they may actually last for another 80 or so years before turning into a no man’s land (what a perfect result, ain’t it?)

Estonia is just a paradise on Earth:)))

In 2008, 3,700 people received Russian citizenship in Estonia, compared to 1,600 that received Estonian citizenship

“The newspaper quoted Russian embassy spokesman Maxim Kozlov who said ‘Estonia is one of the leading places in the world in terms of adoption of Russian citizenship.’ ”

As an average Estonian it is good to see my country develop so fast and firmly after so many years of hardship under Soviet regime and rebuilding the country from ruins.

As an average Estonian I would like to see nothing more than peace between the two countries to live my life without war and conflicts although it will probably be only a dream now that Russia is under strong Putins regime.

I am proud to belong on the same side with EU countries and US though. It is truly supporting feeling to work towards tomorrow rebuilding our country as this time maybe we are not alone when Russia comes to rape, murder and steal again.

Knowing the obvious superiority of American food production to that of Russia, I feel that I should refer fans of Dmitry to an old novel called “The Ugly American.” This should explain any statistics he cites.

Well, in his zeal to whitewash every Russian crime, particularly, seems, every Stalinist crime, he has now come up with such pearls of wisdom as “there was no war between Russia and Poland” or Russia and Estonia. As though attacking a neighboring country were not an act of war.

And, almost forgot, those thousands of Polish military officers shot at Katyn, they probably were not prisoners of war, they just came to Katyn as tourists to get better acquainted with the miracles of Russian “culture.”

All victms of russian/soviet barbrity, including murdered Polish officers, the starved to death population of Ukraine and millions of others have been vindicated just by pictures of moscow during the end of ramadan celebrations – moscow TOTALLY TAKEN OVER BY MUSLIM POPULATION – IT IS PROPHETIC AND FOREBODING. THIS IS RUSSIA’S FUTURE……

Declaration of war is not necessary to start a war. By your logic, Hitler never started the war with the Soviet Union because he never declared war on the Soviet Union. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

Well, Mr. Molotov also thought the war was started without declaration:

RADIO ADDRESS OF 22 JUNE 1941, BY VYACHESLAV MOLOTOV, ASSISTANT CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF THE PEOPLE’S COMMISSARS OF THE U.S.S.R., AND THE PEOPLE’S COMMISSAR FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

As Transcribed and Translated by Novosti Press Agency, June, 1941

Citizens of the Soviet Union! The Soviet Government and its head, Comrade Stalin, have instructed me to make the following announcement:

Today, at 4:00 a.m., without presenting any claims against the Soviet Union or issuing a declaration of war, German troops have attacked our country, assaulting our borders in many places and subjecting our cities of Zhitomir, Kiev, Sevastopol, Kaunas, and other of our towns to bombing by their aircraft

When one country invades another, with or without declaration of war, with or without any “documents”, it’s war. I see you lack basic knowledge of international law, so you can call it “annexation” but that “annexation” would not have happened but for an act of aggression. Call it what you wish, I cannot make you admit that you simply don’t understand. But how did Stalin end up holding and killing thousands of Polish officers if there was no war? Ever thought of that? I do believe you know it was a war, as the whole world knows it, but you are trying to deliberately obfuscate the issue, in order to whitewash Russia’s deeds, and especially those of Stalin’s. Your “patriotism” is quite misplaced, in my opinion. What is black will not magically become white just because you wish it.

In fact, the international law has long recognized that the existence of a war does not depend on whether a formal declaration is made. Undeclared wars are wars just as much as declared ones. There is not just a single example, but hundreds in history, but I give you one as you asked for just one.

How does Soviet-Finnish “Winter” War of 1939-1940 sound? You would admit that Stalin attacked Finland, bombed Helsinki, killed thousands of Finns and so on. Or are you denying this too? Well, if you admit it, there was no declaration or anything. See this:

On 30 November, Soviet forces invaded Finland with 21 divisions, totaling some 450,000 men, and bombed Helsinki. Later the Finnish statesman J. K. Paasikivi commented that the Soviet attack without a declaration of war violated three different non-aggression pacts: the Treaty of Tartu signed in 1920, the non-aggression pact between Finland and the Soviet Union signed in 1932 and again in 1934, and also the Charter of the League of Nations, which the Soviet Union signed in 1934.

I am a constitutional litigator and has been for many years. Please don’t tell me anything about constitutional law of a foreign to you country. The U.S. Constitution does provide the U.S. Congress with the power to declare war, but this does not mean the United States would not go to war without it.

This provision of the Constitution (as well as the of the statute called War Powers Act of the early 1970’s) reserving the exclusive right of Congress to declare war has proved remarkably unenforceable and many Presidents have routinely ignored it, based on other, inconsistent powers the Constitution gave to the executive branch. I am sure it’s hard for you to understand this, but it is difficult for most Americans too.

The United States has fought dozens if not hundreds wars since 1776, but the Congress has made only 5 declarations of war. All other wars were undeclared but very real. It’s you who denied that Russia started any wars and asked me to give you some examples to the contrary. I never disputed that the U.S. has started many wars, some justifiably and some not. Serbia and Afghanistan campaigns are among them (justifiable in my view). Iraq and Vietnam, not justifiable, again in my view.

Now, ignoring your snarky comments about my knowledge of history (which is significant, by the way, I have a master’s degree in European History from Princeton, is that good enough for you?), are you saying that Soviet Union did not start the war against Finland in 1939?

“Serbia and Afghanistan campaigns are among them (justifiable in my view).”

So, dear, if I am a US operator of a fleet of trade naval vessels, an I have an insurance, which must become void in the case of war in the US,

as a constitutional litigator, tell me, would my insurance become void if the US invaded Serbia? Afghanistan?

Would I be able to cancel a contract with any US company I work with now just because we’re in a force majeure now – the US started 4 wars, and is in a state of war, by your definition: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Uganda?

We both know the answer, dear. There’s no war going on. So no need to explain how all these US invasions were “wars”.

“remarkably unenforceable”

Nice to know the US constitutional litigator’s opinion about the US constitution.

“I have a master’s degree in European History from Princeton, is that good enough for you?”

No, dear, it is not. What was that “history” you learned? BA in the N.America indigenous people’s “history”? Because if you don’t know that Georgia invaded Russia in 1918-1919, encouraged by Germans, and you don’t know that Finland invaded Russia several times in 1918-1922, than you definitely know little of the European history.

My specialty is eminent domain litigation, which is based on the fifth amendment jurisprudence. I still remember a thing or two from the general law school curriculum and would be able to answer, but I don’t understand your questions about insurance and about some contract. You are incoherent. If you want me to answer, please re-state the question.

Fine, Princeton education is not good enough for you; too bad the rest of the world has a different opinion. Go ahead and advise those Russians who dream of getting into an Ivy League school that they should instead study in Siberia. See how they react to that.

I don’t understand your sarcasm about American Indians (by putting their history in quotes, are you implying they don’t have history or what?). They are people who are not in any way inferior to you and their culture is just as important as you think yours is. I guess, you just could not help it and just had to openly exhibit your Russian racism.

Be it as it may, I never studied American Indian history, just European one, as I said. And the curriculum at Princeton did not include description of every little battle and skirmish, so it’s true I did not know about Georgian invasion of Russia (Georgia is not in Europe, so it was not covered at all). I concentrated on Italy and my master’s thesis was about Risorgimento if you heard of it.

At least at the time I was there, the gravamen of instruction there was to study mostly general principles rather than memorizing the dates of every battle that can be found in any reference book

presumption 1: I own a US based company that operates a fleet of, say, oil tankers,
presumption 2: I have an insurance issued by a US-based company,
presumption 3: My insurance contract says it becomes null and void in the case the US is in a state of war,
presumption 4: The US air force invades Serbia and bombs Belgrade.

RV: “by putting their history in quotes, are you implying they don’t have history or what?”

By putting their “history” in quotes I imply you did all you could to deprive them of any and all possible “history”. Your country destroyed their culture, and Your country destroyed them physically. What “history” is leftto be talking about? “History” of rape? “History” of murder? “History” of genocide?

Did you ever wonder who suffered more from the US – buffalos, or Indians?

These graphs only confirm what Russian people knew for long time: the Soviet Kremlin invested in Baltic infrastructure much more than in that of Russian Federation… All post-Soviet countries live on the Soviet investments, RF has been a donor republic, and Baltic were recipients…

Umm, let me see… The Soviet Union invaded Poland during the Great Patriotic war because Poland was on the way to Nazi Germany, and those Nazis staying in Warsaw just didn’t wish to let Soviets pass by them to Berlin?

See no other reasons, really doubt Soviet Union was much interested in Poland in 1943-1944.

Continues today, dear? But that’s what RV thinks – war started in 1939 and continues, because no peace treaty was signed, right, RV?

RV, no “hostilities” are end by no “agreements”. You’re a lawyer here, not me, really.

A state may be in a state of war. A state may declare war. A state may be in a state of peace. A state may sign a peace treaty, or an alliance, or a non-aggression pact, or a truce, whatever, but not “agreement”, ending “hostilities”.

Be precise.

Mayski was an ambassador to the UK. Ambassadors to the third states do not sign peace treaties.

The only thing the treaty did to the official interstate relations of the USSR an Polish state was:

It was a paper that allowed them to restore – diplomatic – relations.

Period.

Because there was no war, and there was no need for a peace treaty.

P.S. before you say Stalin again started to recognize Poland with this “agreement”, please check that you have answers to the following: 1) do you have any papers that claim he did not recognize it? 2) if he did not recognize it, then he just gave away a part of Soviet land to a man coming from the street?

“Although the population growth rate decreased over time, it remained positive throughout the history of the USSR in all republics, and the population grew each year by more than 2 million except during periods of wartime, collectivisation, and famine.”

“The Soviet Union was one of the world’s most ethnically diverse countries, with more than 100 distinct national ethnicities living within its borders.”

“The Soviet Union adhered to the doctrine of State atheism from 1928–1941, in which religion was largely discouraged and heavily persecuted, and a secular state from 1945 until its dissolution. However, according to various Soviet and Western sources, over four-fifths of the country’s people professed religious belief”

(Compare to modern Czech rep., where over 60% is non-religious).

“After the communist takeover of power the life expectancy for all age groups went up. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years.”

“death rates did not differ greatly across regions of the USSR”

So,

more religious than the modern Europe,more successful demographicallymore successful as a multiethnic society.

Oh, “heros civilisateurs” type of story… Indians were more happy to swiftly die in numbers from white hands, of course, than to fight each others for centuries, like they did before whiteys came along.

That’s what the Indians had always done to the buffalo, and anyway, they were not MUCH better than communists. At least they didn’t conspire to manipulate people on other continents to help them impose their totalitarian ideology though.

Polant also dropped in to see what’s up in Lithuania in 1919 (Lithuanians still cherish the memories of that unexpected visit), was an Other Uncle Joe’s private country in 1926-1935, gave special signs to Jews (to make sure that Jews are honored enough, of course), honored Belorussians and Ukrainians even more, and did many other fun things.

Hmm, sweetheart, Poland sent 100,000 troops to help occupy a landmass containing over 10 million after the Czechoslovakian army deserted. This was after Germany sent over 3 million. Correct me if I’m wrong.

No, The USA never occupied a square inch of Iraq for a minute, silly.
That’s every American’s home. Unfortunately, we have to wait until all the cheap soviet weapons have outlived their service life until we can feel safe living there.

If you mean banal as in “of or pertaining to a ban,” then yes. Your favorite Russian empire has the power to ban me in my own country now that the cold war is “over.” But if you mean banal as in “lacking originality,” then no.

Estonia’s population is too small to compare with any nation. Their statistics will make more sense if their population is more than one billion just like China and India. Ideas that work for a tiny population hardly worth noticing to countries with large population.

No, you’re mistaken, Russian prostitutes cannot be inexpensive. Maybe the whore which you used last time was from Moldova or Ukraine (and maybe in fact it was a man). Russian prostitutes are desirable for desperate german men because german women’s faces are often only suitable to hammer nails. That’s why russian prostitutes cannot be inexpensive.

This site is strongly anti-Russian biased (it has it in name and not only), it takes figures from various sources in order to show Russia as less developed as possible. Comparing Russian economy with Estonian, as Estonia is the most successful post-Soviet republic, shows Russia as not progressive country. Try to compare Russian GDP with your favourite Georgia (has not surpassed GDP level from year 1989), Lithuania or Latvia, which seem to be favourite countries of this site.

Life expectancy in Russia has been decreasing since 1988 (Gorbachev’s anti-alcohol campaign managed to raise life expectancy, but later it was inefficient because USSR started to disintegrate), since 2003 is increasing. However, I see in that graph decrease in LE in years 2008-2009. How is that possible? No way this can be true. Crude death rate in 2008 was 14.6, in 2009 14.2. In fact, LE increased from 67.98 to 68.79.

Whole this blog tries to show that Russia is being depopulated and poor. To this can I only add this comparision:
2011 Crude BR Crude DR TFR Life expectancy GDP (per capita)
Russia 12.6 13.5 1.61 70.3 16,687
Estonia 11.0 11.4 1.55 74.8 19,375

And I say again Estonia is the most successful country from former USSR. Nice try, but in the future compare more countries and figures from not biased sources. Time will tell who after all “whips whose butt” as it is in the headline.

The main thing one has to remember is that Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary and Romania were the countries which admire Hitler and their native population voluntarily and cheerfully exterminated the Jews. To this day, the nationalists in the Baltics and the Western Ukrainians wear swasticas and have SS parades. To be a Russophobe in these countries is to be pro Hitler, pro Nazi. They are the ones who started mass murder of the Jews before German Nazi troops entered their countries. Especially, the Baltics (Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians), the Ukrainians and the Poles. To be a Russophobe is to be a Jew hater, the secret of their Russophobia is Germanophilia and Judophobia, the admiration for Hitler and his ideology. Essentially, this site is a Nazi promotion site under the guise of Russophobia. The Judophobia here is evident and it goes together with the poor IQ of the contributors and a poor logic of the posts here.

Estonia is full of monuments erected to the Nazis, and its people exterminated the Jews in WWII, it gutted the monuments to the soldiers who fought Hitler. This despicable site (LR) is really promoting anti Semitism and is implicitly pro Hitler, supporting all the Easterm European nationalists who wear swasticas to just about any event. It’s no longer cool to praise the Nazis as such, but LR comes as close as it can without actually saying it. At the end of WWII, the British and American forces entered the Nazi camps and kept the Jews there for a long time, treating them the same as Nazis. The Russians liberated the prisoners at once. This is consistent with the massacres and rapes American and British commit in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On this site, you see primitive hate, Neanderthal comments, veiled Nazi sympathies of the East European nationalist scum and posters with American trailer trash mentality to which 100% of the US media subscribes to. Never an in depth measured intellectual analysis.

Or, rather: Nazi Germany was an effort in re-inventing the US Settler Reich and the British Empire. But the Soviets would not have it. This in essence what Western russophobes are hating the most. As Vladimir Putin’s Russia creates ever greater problems for the West, this slander continues.

NOTICE: This blog quotes from source material, and links to it. When a post contains quotes and original material, the quotes are in ordinary print and the original in boldface. See "About LR" in the title bar for copyright notice.

Supporting La Russophobe

La Russophobe does not solicit or accept financial support from any source. If you would like to show your support for LR and your opposition to the rise of dictatorship in Russia, the easiest way is to create a Digg or StumbleUpon or Delicious account and use it to favorite some of our posts. LR also welcomes your e-mail comments and submissions for publication, and we urge you to support the effort to boycott of the Sochi Olympics.